Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step 208 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  BA,

  Give it up. People do not read your posts in isolation and we all know where you are coming from. Your scriptual beliefs, as you have expressed them to date on this Board are entirely compatible with those of the WTS. I have previously asked you to allow us to read a comparison of which teachings of the WTS, for example their particular creationist dogma, you actually do not agree with. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.

  All the views you have expressed both scriptually and in tandem with the points you make regarding "creation" are YEC teachings as are the WTS. The WTS differes in one regard, the length of the creative days. I suspect that even in this regard your dogma is in concert with theirs.

  The majority of us have come from a WTS background religiously and are well aquainted with the process of self-deception when it comes to our religious "faith". That you have hardly strayed a yard from their teachings, and as I note we have numerous posts from you to evdience this, tells us all we need to know about you.

  So, how is your dogma and that of the WTS different when it comes to the interepretation of Genesis and the "creation" of man?

  HS

  PS - Shouting by font is not indicative of a sound argument, or the existence of a thinking brain, it is bad netiquette. Why not can it?
• 

  tijkmo

  Gravity is a fact. The theory explains how gravity works, and this can change when new data is available.

  bit like the wt then....'these are the unquestionable facts until we tell you different'

  i did find it interesting that the definition of theory being equal to facts is put forward by those who don't have facts to support their theories.

  tijkmo ..of the going to bed but feel free to keep convincing yourself that your beliefs don't require faith class
• 

  Brother Apostate

  BA,

  Give it up. People do not read your posts in isolation and we all know where you are coming from. Your scriptual beliefs, as you have expressed them to date on this Board are entirely compatible with those of the WTS. I have previously asked you to allow us to read a comparison of which teachings of the WTS, for example their particular creationist dogma, you actually do not agree with. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.

  My silence on the matter only shows that I don't currently feel inclined to write yet another dissertation on my beliefs. My disagreements with the WTBTS are very numerous and are my reason for leaving the jws. If my views were "entirely compatible" with them I would still be one of them. Should I at some future time and date be so inclined, I will put together a point by point list of my differences. For now they are scattered throughout threads on JWD.

  All the views you have expressed both scriptually and in tandem with the points you make regarding "creation" are YEC teachings as are the WTS. The WTS differes in one regard, the length of the creative days. I suspect that even in this regard your dogma is in concert with theirs.

  I have never, since leaving the jws, taken the stand that the earth is x years old. The creative days, in my opinion, were simply a period of time, however long. That makes my beliefs compatible with currently held science. Yet, my beliefs are not dogmatic (other than what is required for salvation) they are continually influenced by learning and re-evaluating the vast majority of my beliefs.

  The majority of us have come from a WTS background religiously and are well aquainted with the process of self-deception when it comes to our religious "faith". That you have hardly strayed a yard from their teachings, and as I note we have numerous posts from you to evdience this, tells us all we need to know about you.

  Yet another mischaracterization of my beliefs. Your absence of knowledge of my beliefs is not license to infer understanding by clairvoyance or other means.

  So, how is your dogma and that of the WTS different when it comes to the interepretation of Genesis and the "creation" of man?

  Perhaps I will write that up- it will be long, for sure. Feel free to bury yourself with mischaracterizations and lies in the mean time.

  PS - Shouting by font is not indicative of a sound argument, or the existence of a thinking brain, it is bad netiquette. Why not can it?

  I use a larger font on some posts because, once pasted in to the forum, my initial post has font so small that it would require a magnifying glass to read it. I then have to repeatedly re-format it. Sometimes the only way to get it right is to increase the font size. It's an issue with the forum that has sporadically occured, and has nothing to do with "netiquette". THIS IS SHOUTING. This is not shouting. Get it? Good.

  BA- /un-hijack/
• 

  hillary_step

  tijkmo,

  While I am loathe to quote Wikipedia, it does actually give a very good explanation scietific theory and what it means:

  In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

  When a person denies evolution on the basis that it is not a fact but a theory, as in, "even the sceintists call it a theory not a fact" they misunderstand what a scientific theory actually is.

  Beliefs in the religious sense require faith. Beliefs in the scientific sense are 'hypotheses' which can and are inevitably proved or disproved by experimental progress. Here you note an interesting process. For a "believer" to turn his back on faith is a mortal sin, as we have all found to our cost. For a scientist to discard a hypothesis when the theory (fact) cannot be progressively established is frustrating, but very much a part of the process of being able to falsify an hypothesis and a fundamental structure of true knowledge.

  Science is much more to be trusted due to this falsifiable process than religion or faith in dogma, which has a history of often fighting the scientific facts to preserve its beliefs.

  HS
• 

  onacruse

  hs:

  For a scientist to discard a hypothesis when the theory (fact) cannot be progressively established is frustrating, but very much a part of the process of being able to falsify an hypothesis and a fundamental structure of true knowledge.

  Yes, indeed! It reminds me of the Michelson-Morley experiment, where these two highly respected scientists set forth an experiment to prove once and for all the existence of a space-permeating "ether" that would salvage the Newtonian physics which had by that time come to be considered almost as sacred ineffable truth. When their experiment, after much anticipation, proved that there was in fact no such ether, what did they do? They, along with Maxwell and Einstein and others, proceeded forthwith to take the evidential facts as given, and reformulated an entirely new hypothesis about the nature of the universe. Nobody committed suicide, and nobody was sent to the gallows or the dungeons.

  Along the same lines of thought, I posted something on another thread, which I won't repost here, except for the link.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148737/2700620/post.ashx#2700620
• 

  hillary_step

  BA,

  Yet another mischaracterization of my beliefs. Your absence of knowledge of my beliefs is not license to infer understanding by clairvoyance or other means.

  Streuth but you are thick-headed!

  Your posts man. All the religious ones. The ones where you mimic exactly the WTS thinking on the subjects that you discuss, including what animals went on the Ark. The creation of "kinds". You were even stupid enough to state recently that you did not believe that a "sparrow could become an eagle".....lol showing a complete ignorance of the subject at hand.

  You even posted a link recently evidencing the fulfillment of "prophecies" from the Bible, trying to show that it is a "supernatural" book and half of it was a mirror on WTS end-times reasoning.

  Please feel free to "write up" exactly what your view of the "creation" in Genesis is and side by side note where your views differ from the WTS in this regard. Those of us who have been dumb enough to have spent valuable and irreplacable time reading your posts already know the answer. I think the only one who does not know is your good-self.

  lol...What a buf(f)oon.

  HS
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Streuth but you are thick-headed! Your posts man. All the religious ones. The ones where you mimic exactly the WTS thinking on the subjects that you discuss, including what animals went on the Ark. The creation of "kinds". You were even stupid enough to state recently that you did not believe that a "sparrow could become an eagle".....lol showing a complete ignorance of the subject at hand. You even posted a link recently evidencing the fulfillment of "prophecies" from the Bible, trying to show that it is a "supernatural" book and half of it was a mirror on WTS end-times reasoning. Please feel free to "write up" exactly what your view of the "creation" in Genesis is and side by side note where your views differ from the WTS in this regard. Those of us who have been dumb enough to have spent valuable and irreplacable time reading your posts already know the answer. I think the only one who does not know is your good-self.

  All I can say in reply is:

  However often you repeat an error it does not become corrected by repetition. When you finally learn this your knowledge base will increase exponentially. Just for the record you are incorrect about this...again.

  BA- Chill out and take your own medicine, for pete's sake!
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  i did find it interesting that the definition of theory being equal to facts is put forward by those who don't have facts to support their theories.

  tijkmo, there are many facts to support evolution. I have compiled a list for you to look through.

  Creationists will very often change what evolution means to make it seem implausible. You may have heard things like 'cats can't turn into dogs!' or 'humans don't come from monkeys!' Correct, and evolution doesn't teach that. Creationists like to pretend it does. It also says nothing about the big bang, how Earth formed or how life came from non life. Creationists like to pretend it does. For a straightforward easy to understand explanation of evolution, these video lectures are good-

  http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

  Here are fossils from the family line of humans. These show how we have changed over thousands of years. Don't rush this part, there are a lot of photos here if you have a look around the site.

  http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/

  Here's another site on that: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

  Occasionally, evolutionary discoveries will make it to the news. Here are two examples:

  Songbird shows how evolution works- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

  Researchers witness natural selection at work in dramatic comeback of male butterflies- http://www.physorg.com/news103469691.html

  To keep up to date with the latest evolutionary news, check this page now and then-

  http://richarddawkins.net/cat1_Science,cat2_Evolution-and-Biology

  If you have any questions then bring them to myself or other posters here should be able to help you out. The above really is the tip of the iceberg.
• 

  tijkmo

  tijkmo, there are many facts to support evolution. I have compiled a list for you to look through.

  but why would you think i would want to waste time wading thru 'evidence' to support evolution..what possible good would it do me? i don't want to believe in it. it gives me no basis for hope whatsoever.

  While I am loathe to quote Wikipedia, it does actually give a very good explanation scietific theory and what it means:

  it gives a good explanation for those who wish to choose to believe what it says...who was it that came up with that definition that a theory is essentially a fact that can't be proved but must be accepted as a fact simply because it can't be disproved - until such time as it can be.

  You were even stupid enough to state recently that you did not believe that a "sparrow could become an eagle".....lol showing a complete ignorance of the subject at hand.

  i don't believe a sparrow can become an eagle...so yes that may well make me ignorant of the ' present facts'...but stupid i most certainly am not. unless of course you have a dictionary that defines ignorant as stupid with no other definition in which case i would have to accept that unless of course there is another dictionary that defines it differently in which case - cue head explosion..

  and that is the point isn't it - of faith, self deceit, definitions, theoretics etc etc. :- anyone with an agenda can formulate a theory and 2 or more people with different agendas can look at the same 'facts' and come up with different conclusions...an evolutionist can look at bones and fossils and see proof of evolution - someone who believes in a god will look at the same evidence as proof of creation.(they may both be scientists)... 2 different doctors will look at a patient and one will demand a blood transfusion and one will not...2 detectives may come to different conclusions on the guilt of an accused person..2 jurys may do the same..2 judicial commitees likewise.

  personally i'm past caring...but i do find it amusing that folk who believe evolution are as annoyed in my lack of desire to accept as gospel (sic) what they believe as those who want me to believe in creation are. this stuff just never gets old. anymore than the annoyance that their belief is based on faith just as much as belief in a god because they won't accept the definition of the word faith due to its biblical/religious connatations.

  i was thinking about theoretics recently while watching golf - if you take any given golf course i'm sure that you will find that different people at different times have scored a hole in one at each of the par 3s, an eagle at the par 4s, and an albatross at the par 5s whether this be by flukes or by brilliant golf. On a regular par 72 (4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, 10 par 4s) course then, that theoretically proves that it is possible to play the course in 32 shots. i have faith that this is possible - i have no doubt that it ain't never* gonna happen..not by me nor by tiger

  (*ain't never - yes i know - move on)

  and now on a lighter note ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOzVkSFnKxI
• 

  Superfine Apostate

  > it gives me no basis for hope whatsoever.
  
  why believers believe: that pretty much sums it up.
  
  a theory is not a fact that can't be proved, a theory describes something observable, falsifiable, testable. scientific method. you may just chose to not believe in electricity. it does not give us any hope either.
  
  evolution is a law of nature (natural selection + mutation). evolution theory describes how it works.